/lit/ - Literature

What are some strong points (one can hardly deny/make the argument well holding) or some weak points one can easily attack (e.g. a faulty assumption) in Singer’s “all animals are equal?
For example, his use of the requirement of simply enjoying pleasures and feeling pain as enough for them to worthy equal to humans treatment makes it quite difficult to attack his argument further on.

However, he mentions death being something negative when talking about treatment of non-human animals, which opens up an issue leaving him vulnerable (that death initself is not bad, and if well raised and painlessly killed, eating animals is not bad). Any other ideas?

link to reading in case somebody wants

http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/philosophy/animals/singer-text.html